144hz Ultrawide

[TheConverter]

Wasn't aware. I have a Plasma from 2012 so what do I know? Well hopefully if they start churning out 120hz on DP 1.3/1.4 HDMI will catch up so we can finally have 120hz fantasy football on a 65" 4k TV 8-)

 

Ayy lmaao.. TV's never have Displayport.. only HDMI. Don't expect a HDMI 3.0 or something like that in the next 5 years.

 

New HDMI version will get released when 8K TV's come out.

[Hikaru12]

Ayy lmaao.. TV's never have Displayport.. only HDMI. Don't expect a HDMI 3.0 or something like that in the next 5 years.

 

New HDMI version will get released when 8K TV's come out.

 

Well I meant if DP was getting improved on then HDMI would hopefully be forced to keep up to the point where you could get the same results as you could from 1.3 (ideally 120hz at 4k). This could then easily be carried over to the TV side and it would be a win for both. HDMI suffers from too many licensing issues to readily release a new version, I get that but one can dream.

[CostcoSamples]

Manufactures are too lazy to make displays that require either 2 or even 4 cables like back in the old days.

 

The first 4K display in 2001 required four DVI-D cables or something like that for 3840×2400 @ 41hz

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

 

 

 

 

Haha yeah those old 4k monitors are awesome!  My friend had one at work (engineer at a cancer research facility).  

 

I don't know that laziness is the right word for not building it for consumers though.  It's a business decision, they obviously thought it made the most sense for selling a lot of product and making good profits.

[Metro]

Do you mean the Acer x34?  where did you pre order from?? 

 

I got it from Scan

[Metro]

Yes, but 100hz and 144hz is still a big difference.

 

There is not really much of a difference between 100hz and 144hz

[TheConverter]

There is not really much of a difference between 100hz and 144hz

 

Well I just tested it in Battlefield, there is a difference but you could get used to it. If the 100hz is stock, maybe we can overclock the monitor to 110 or even 120hz which is supported in alot of games.

 

But... is it worth it for the extra field of view? Am I gonna get better or worser at FPS games? How about the 99% of games that don't support the 21:9 ratio? I play A LOT of old games and love the fact that I can play them in 1440P @ 144hz in 2015   (assuming they aren't locked to 30 or 60FPS)

[Guest Strangerbob]

I'd be very surprised if by around this time next year DP 1.3 isn't out. 1.4 will probably take more time as it's only recently been standardized. They may pull an Intel and skip 1.3 all together lol

 

I would like to see some of this technology make it's way into TVs as well as most of them are still running HDMI 1.4 which can't take full potential of a TVs 60hz refresh rate. 

 

DP1.3 is the max. 

1.4 is for laptop internals only and it has lower bandwidth than 1.3.

 

1.3 is a marginal, pathetic increase over 1.2 bandwidth we have now. And there is NOTHING better even announced. Only hope is the rumored superMHL cable which should replace hdmi and has 3x dp1.3 bandwidth, now that would be an increase worth a fuck. ...aaaaaaand its 5 years away at minimum. So is OLED.

 

The conclusion is that this acer x34 with its 3440x1440 @100hz is the best we are gona have for the next 5 years at least. Ok, we might up it to 144hz, OR 1600p (dp1.3 wont be able to do both at the same time even), but nothing more than just marginal improvements.

 

 

Oh, and before you say "but dp1.3 can do 4k@120hz!!!, thats something, right?".

Current dp1.2 can do 4k@85hz... acer even has a TN 75hz 4k monitor coming at the end of the year.

[Metro]

Well I just tested it in Battlefield, there is a difference but you could get used to it. If the 100hz is stock, maybe we can overclock the monitor to 110 or even 120hz which is supported in alot of games.

 

But... is it worth it for the extra field of view? Am I gonna get better or worser at FPS games? How about the 99% of games that don't support the 21:9 ratio? I play A LOT of old games and love the fact that I can play them in 1440P @ 144hz in 2015   (assuming they aren't locked to 30 or 60FPS)

 

You have not seen 21.9 then, most games support it now.

[TheConverter]

You have not seen 21.9 then, most games support it now.

 

Who cares about 21:9 when I used 48:9 7680x1440 144hz with G-SYNC? And that sucked too, unless you have 4 Titan X to power it at a playable framerate.

Will I be able to play games before 2014 without .ini hacks? Nope.

 

 

Also there is no way I would pay 1100$ for such monitor, I paid 419€ for this refurbished Acer XB270HU, so max 600-700€ for the ultrawide version.

[CostcoSamples]

Well I just tested it in Battlefield, there is a difference but you could get used to it. If the 100hz is stock, maybe we can overclock the monitor to 110 or even 120hz which is supported in alot of games.

 

But... is it worth it for the extra field of view? Am I gonna get better or worser at FPS games? How about the 99% of games that don't support the 21:9 ratio? I play A LOT of old games and love the fact that I can play them in 1440P @ 144hz in 2015   (assuming they aren't locked to 30 or 60FPS)

Is 21:9 compatibility really that bad??  I'd love an ultra wide monitor, but if compatibility sucks I don't see the point. 

[TheConverter]

Is 21:9 compatibility really that bad??  I'd love an ultra wide monitor, but if compatibility sucks I don't see the point. 

 

It is, for 99% of the games out there. You either have to use a third party app, or even hack the FOV + resolution yourself.

 

Why did they stop at 21:9 and not 30:9 or something like that.

[CostcoSamples]

It is, for 99% of the games out there. You either have to use a third party app, or even hack the FOV + resolution yourself.

 

Why did they stop at 21:9 and not 30:9 or something like that.

Well, aspect ratios are pretty arbitrary, but 21:9 does have some scaling benefits, according to wikipedia:

 

"The 64:27 (aka 21:9) aspect ratio is the logical extension of the existing video aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:9, as it is the third power of 4:3, where 16:9 of traditional HDTV is 4:3 squared. This allows electronic scalers to use an easily implementable 4:3 (1.33:1) scaling factor."

[Metro]

Well, aspect ratios are pretty arbitrary, but 21:9 does have some scaling benefits, according to wikipedia:

 

"The 64:27 (aka 21:9) aspect ratio is the logical extension of the existing video aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:9, as it is the third power of 4:3, where 16:9 of traditional HDTV is 4:3 squared. This allows electronic scalers to use an easily implementable 4:3 (1.33:1) scaling factor."

 

Do not take notice of the 21.9 statement he has about it. There is lots of support for it in games.

[Metro]

Who cares about 21:9 when I used 48:9 7680x1440 144hz with G-SYNC? And that sucked too, unless you have 4 Titan X to power it at a playable framerate.

Will I be able to play games before 2014 without .ini hacks? Nope.

 

 

Also there is no way I would pay 1100$ for such monitor, I paid 419€ for this refurbished Acer XB270HU, so max 600-700€ for the ultrawide version.

 

That is just Surround, does not compare to 21.9, with 21.9 you get no bezels and no fisheye effect on it. Also, it is just a higher end monitor that you do not want to pay for, just like how people complain about the cost of a GTX 980ti, there are just different ends of the market

[TheConverter]

That is just Surround, does not compare to 21.9, with 21.9 you get no bezels and no fisheye effect on it. 

 

The fish-eye effect is the fault of the developers, some games don't have that problem. Furthermore, bezels get thinner and thinner. After a time you won't even notice them, as the two sidemonitors are just used for peripheral view. I would rather play at +100FPS on a single screen then at 60FPS or less on three screens.

 

Also, it is just a higher end monitor that you do not want to pay for, just like how people complain about the cost of a GTX 980ti, there are just different ends of the market

That doesn't make sense, I now have a Acer XB270HU which is the world best monitor, and a 980Ti, which again is currently the world best graphics card (yes it beats the Titan X even on auto-boost)

 

And yes, i find it funny how people say it's expensive, the MSI version that I have is 670$ in the US, which is  600€, yet I paid 799€ one month after release. Lowest price is now 758€.

[Metro]

The fish-eye effect is the fault of the developers, some games don't have that problem. Furthermore, bezels get thinner and thinner. After a time you won't even notice them, as the two sidemonitors are just used for peripheral view. I would rather play at +100FPS on a single screen then at 60FPS or less on three screens.

That doesn't make sense, I now have a Acer XB270HU which is the world best monitor, and a 980Ti, which again is currently the world best graphics card (yes it beats the Titan X even on auto-boost)

 

And yes, i find it funny how people say it's expensive, the MSI version that I have is 670$ in the US, which is  600€, yet I paid 799€ one month after release. Lowest price is now 758€.

 

Well you just said 1100 dollars is expensive for that monitor. I think that it is a good price considering what you get with it. Also would you get the ACER XB270HU if it was the normal price.

[TheConverter]

Well you just said 1100 dollars is expensive for that monitor. I think that it is a good price considering what you get with it. Also would you get the ACER XB270HU if it was the normal price.

 

Assuming the store where I bought it sold it almost half the price (other monitors go for 20-30% off if they are returned) they must make a big margin on them.

 

Acer has become the Razer of monitors. Not only do they look like crap for the amount they ask with big glossy plastic bezels, they also don't do any quality check what so ever. I don't think it's normal that people have to RMA 4-5 monitors until they can get a decent one for a 799$ monitor.

 

So I will definitely go with Asus next time:

 

[Guest Strangerbob]

Is 21:9 compatibility really that bad??  I'd love an ultra wide monitor, but if compatibility sucks I don't see the point. 

 

No, its quite good actually. That TheConverter guy just has NO CLUE what hes talking about. Hes more interested in letting everybody know he got the acer predator 16:9 for 400$. So of course he`ll bash 21:9...   needs to make sure in his head he has the best monitor out there.

[Hikaru12]

Is 21:9 compatibility really that bad??  I'd love an ultra wide monitor, but if compatibility sucks I don't see the point. 

 

No, you can get a program called Widescreen Fixer which fixes the FOV and aspect ratio in games that don't support 21:9. Some really old titles may not support it, however, but that's a given. Those type of games are usually in 4:3 and probably less than 1080P.

[TumbleButt]

Acer x34 - 34inch, IPS,3440x1440, 100hz + gsync

Be still, my heart... and my penis.

[Metro]

Assuming the store where I bought it sold it almost half the price (other monitors go for 20-30% off if they are returned) they must make a big margin on them.

 

Acer has become the Razer of monitors. Not only do they look like crap for the amount they ask with big glossy plastic bezels, they also don't do any quality check what so ever. I don't think it's normal that people have to RMA 4-5 monitors until they can get a decent one for a 799$ monitor.

 

So I will definitely go with Asus next time:

 

 

You think ASUS is good, that is quite funny, considering how many issues they have with the RoG Swift and RoG Dominator, there GPUs are terrible and their customer service is bad, they are becoming worse than ACER

[TheConverter]

You think ASUS is good, that is quite funny, considering how many issues they have with the RoG Swift and RoG Dominator, there GPUs are terrible and their customer service is bad, they are becoming worse than ACER

 

K, beat this:

 

[TheConverter]

No, its quite good actually. That TheConverter guy just has NO CLUE what hes talking about. Hes more interested in letting everybody know he got the acer predator 16:9 for 400$. So of course he`ll bash 21:9...   needs to make sure in his head he has the best monitor out there.

 

Ummm... I have tested nearly every monitor out there in the last year including a handfull of ultrawides, I flip them for a profit:

 

- 1 LG 34UM95-P

- 2 LG 34UC97-S

- 1 AOC U3477PQU

- 1 Samsung S34E790C

- 6-7 Acer XB270HU's (made more then 1000€ with them)

- 2 Swift PG278Q's (they often have just 1 or 2 death pixels)

- Couple of Philips BDM4065UC's (yes those 40 inch 4K panels, DHL won't even ship them)

- 1 BenQ BL3201PT (32 inch IPS 4K)

- Acer Predator XB280HK (4K TN with G-SYNC)

 

Sooo.. can't wait to get my hands on either the XR341CK or the Asus one. Currently all ultrawides are useless for gaming, because they are all 60hz.

[CostcoSamples]

You think ASUS is good, that is quite funny, considering how many issues they have with the RoG Swift and RoG Dominator, there GPUs are terrible and their customer service is bad, they are becoming worse than ACER

I do think the look of the Asus monitors is a lot nicer than Acer.  Glossy plastic - no thanks! 

 

Also, I'm no fanboy buy I do have an Asus GPU, laptop, and motherboard and have been very happy with the quality.  Not exactly statistically relevant, I know, just putting it out there.  I perceive Asus as having good quality products, and well designed for gamers.

[TheConverter]

I do think the look of the Asus monitors is a lot nicer than Acer.  Glossy plastic - no thanks! 

 

Also, I'm no fanboy buy I do have an Asus GPU, laptop, and motherboard and have been very happy with the quality.  Not exactly statistically relevant, I know, just putting it out there.  I perceive Asus as having good quality products, and well designed for gamers.

My Asus motherboard that I'm currently using is nearly 5 years old, never had any problems with it.